4 ms·
I'm pretty sure the (hypothetical) specious argument referred to was "people are becoming alcoholics to trick doctors into giving them party drugs". And in add
by Cederfjard 4y ago
I'm pretty sure the (hypothetical) specious argument referred to was "people are becoming alcoholics to trick doctors into giving them party drugs".
And in addition to that, anigbrowl believes Paul isn't sincere when he professes to believe that "you ought to be able to pretty much do what you want to do as long as you don't hurt somebody else", which is why they chose him as an example, but that wasn't the important part.
- brigandish 4y agoFair enough, though since anigbrowl is continuing their absurd argument regardless of any opposition, I think replacing “hypothetical” with “straw man” would be more appropriate.
- anigbrowl 4y agoYou're reading way too much in what I already told you was an offhand remark. I replied to your other posts out of courtesy, not to win an argument.
- brigandish 4y agoA straw man does not need to be intentional, it's easily done through ignorance. I do wonder why you'd be bothered about having an off-hand remark that is clearly wrong corrected? If it was truly offhand I'd think it would be easy to accept such correction. Maybe you'll tell me more about your belief that Paul is insincere but I don't count mind reading among my beliefs, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and - hopefully - agree that wilfully ignorant offhand remarks add nothing to HN. Perhaps take the time to find a non-libertarian, non-doctor from the Republicans to use in future and the tribalism will at least be less blatant and egregious.
- tanseydavid 4y agoYour offhand remark pulled the thread off-the-rails pretty quickly and easily.